sendVoice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it discloses display semantics, format enforcement, the 50MB size cap, and the return contract ('On success, the sent Message is returned'). The return-value note is especially valuable given there is no output schema. It omits permission requirements and failure behavior, but for a send operation the format and size constraints are the critical behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each earning its place: distinguishing purpose, format eligibility, return value, and size limit. The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the whole description is compact relative to the tool's 16-parameter complexity. There is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: what it does, which formats qualify, the size ceiling, and what is returned. It misses only peripheral context — permission requirements, explicit mutation notice, and failure behavior — which are conventional for send-type Telegram API tools and unlikely to mislead an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, setting the baseline at 3. The format and size constraints in the description relate to the voice parameter but do not add meaning beyond the schema's already-detailed per-parameter descriptions (file_id, URL, or multipart upload for voice). No parameter is left undocumented and the description does not need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Send audio files') and immediately defines the distinguishing display mode: 'if you want Telegram clients to display the file as a playable voice message.' This behaviorally separates it from sibling sendAudio (audio played as a music file) and sendVideoNote without ambiguity, so an agent can select it correctly without inspecting either tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The conditional 'if you want Telegram clients to display the file as a playable voice message' gives clear selection context. The format requirements (.OGG/OPUS, .MP3, .M4A) and the 50MB cap provide actionable constraints on when a call will succeed. However, no alternative tool is named explicitly (e.g., 'for music files use sendAudio instead'), so exclusion guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.